Payload ratio
- Thread starter Reebavic
- Start date
Mickey Bitsko
Adventurer
For a truck, qvw minus curb weight.
SootyCamper
Active member
For mechanical sympathy it's wise to follow that 85% regarding payload aswell. Far too many overlanders are at or over gvwr. Then they wonder why they're their vehicle is so unreliable 😜
Most people carrying campers of any size (9, 10, 11') are over their payload and GVWR. Just don't overload your tires and axles.
My 8' Palamino pop-up in a 1996 Dodge 1500 weighed 7,000. GVWR WAS 6,400.
My 11' camper on a Chevy 3500 SRW was 11,150. GVWR wad 9,900. Same camper on a Chevy dually weighed in at 13,100. GVWR was 11,400. I had thousands of trouble free miles out of both rigs.
My 8' Palamino pop-up in a 1996 Dodge 1500 weighed 7,000. GVWR WAS 6,400.
My 11' camper on a Chevy 3500 SRW was 11,150. GVWR wad 9,900. Same camper on a Chevy dually weighed in at 13,100. GVWR was 11,400. I had thousands of trouble free miles out of both rigs.
JSKepler
New member
I guess there's no consensus on this. I'm thinking of putting a NL 8-11 on an '04 F350 SuperDuty. I'll be a few hundred pounds over weight but I need the 4-season capability of the NL. My alternate is a Lance 825 with significantly less 4-season capability.
There seem to be two schools of thought on this:
- Stay under GVWR!
- Don't get stupid. Put some airbags on it and go.
These two schools seem to be derived from primarily two sets of information:
- Don't exceed design specs
- I've done it and had no problem for thousands of miles
I've not really run into anyone who kept it reasonable (10% to 20% over) and decided it was a bad idea from their personal experience. I'm sure they are out there but this seems to be the vast majority.
Should I go with my engineering background and stick to design (knowing full well what 'design' really means) and get a Lance 825 that will stay within spec? Or, go with experience and get the better camper? I won't exceed axle limits or tire limits.
In my line of work experience trumps theory every time but you need to start with the theory to get to the experience.
There seem to be two schools of thought on this:
- Stay under GVWR!
- Don't get stupid. Put some airbags on it and go.
These two schools seem to be derived from primarily two sets of information:
- Don't exceed design specs
- I've done it and had no problem for thousands of miles
I've not really run into anyone who kept it reasonable (10% to 20% over) and decided it was a bad idea from their personal experience. I'm sure they are out there but this seems to be the vast majority.
Should I go with my engineering background and stick to design (knowing full well what 'design' really means) and get a Lance 825 that will stay within spec? Or, go with experience and get the better camper? I won't exceed axle limits or tire limits.
In my line of work experience trumps theory every time but you need to start with the theory to get to the experience.
dstefan
Well-known member
The problem is that no really really knows. It’s a combo of every rig is different and the use cases are different (eg, top heavy?, towing?, FS roads or the Rubicon?, what mods?) and the fact that the GVWR numbers are a combination of OEM lawyers, marketers, state limits for personal vs commercial vehicle weights, and design engineers calculations of safety margins, crap tires designed to get best mpg but not carry weight, plus maybe other stuff we don’t know (steel quality? other mechanicals redesign that hasn’t been disclosed, etc).
I have no idea, but I really doubt that the OEMs actually test things to failure, do they? If so, Toyota would have the Truck of the year with the new Tundras instead of a dumpster fire of engine failures. That’s where the experience of others helps a little bit.
I think you just have to understand the structure of your vehicle, the effect of intended mods and how it will all work together with the weight you’ll run in different circumstances. It all ends up to be a big ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . . .
Personally, I’d add a subset to your Don’t Exceed Design Specs/Stay under GVWR and make that Don’t Exceed Your Combined and Individual Axle WR (but know if your vehicle has a particular weakness). IF there’s any kind of consensus at all on this from the hundreds (maybe thousands?) of posts on payload, it might be that. If that’s what works for heavy commercial hauling, it may be the least squishy metric to be a hard stop threshold, but then again . . .YMMV!
I have no idea, but I really doubt that the OEMs actually test things to failure, do they? If so, Toyota would have the Truck of the year with the new Tundras instead of a dumpster fire of engine failures. That’s where the experience of others helps a little bit.
I think you just have to understand the structure of your vehicle, the effect of intended mods and how it will all work together with the weight you’ll run in different circumstances. It all ends up to be a big ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . . .
Personally, I’d add a subset to your Don’t Exceed Design Specs/Stay under GVWR and make that Don’t Exceed Your Combined and Individual Axle WR (but know if your vehicle has a particular weakness). IF there’s any kind of consensus at all on this from the hundreds (maybe thousands?) of posts on payload, it might be that. If that’s what works for heavy commercial hauling, it may be the least squishy metric to be a hard stop threshold, but then again . . .YMMV!
rruff
Explorer
They don't even truly test via a computer simulation, because scaling from prior knowledge is much more effective... what the payout for warranty and liability was on prior similar designs, etc.
Good engineering means being thorough... and satisfying the bean counters, marketeers, and lawyers, mostly.
Yes in Ca, no in the US.
Gravelette
Active member
They are factoring in a couple of really porkie occupants.
rruff
Explorer
They are throwing in a WAG and CYA to account for most campers being high-CG.